Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF Comparison

The Intel Core 5 211TE and Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF occupy different tiers of Intel’s desktop lineup, and the benchmark data reflects a wide performance gulf between them. The Core 5 211TE, a Bartlett Lake part on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, delivers a modest but functional set of results. The Core Ultra 7 265KF, an Arrow Lake-S processor on Intel Socket 1851, posts substantially higher scores across every recorded test. This analysis compares the two based entirely on the recorded measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database. The smallest margin occurs in PassMark physics, where the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 3633 against the Core 5 211TE’s 1278, a difference of 64.8 percent. That remains a decisive gap, but it is the closest result between the two parts.

The largest single margin appears in PassMark floating point math. The Core Ultra 7 265KF records 189431, while the Core 5 211TE manages 26150, a difference of 86.2 percent. Similar extremes show up in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 486 versus 72, a difference of 85.2 percent, and PassMark data encryption, where 48198 against 7231 yields an 85 percent gap.

Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265KF reaches 49736, while the Core 5 211TE scores 12201, a difference of 75.5 percent. The single-core Cinebench R23 test shows 7021 versus 1722, again a 75.5 percent difference. Every Cinebench R15 and R20 test, both multi-core and single-core, also shows a 75.5 percent gap, with the Core Ultra 7 265KF ahead in each case.

PassMark integer math sees the Core Ultra 7 265KF score 143351 against 33991, a difference of 76.3 percent. PassMark multi-thread shows 58518 versus 11685, an 80 percent gap. PassMark data compression shows 666589 versus 133434, also an 80 percent difference. PassMark random string sorting shows 79735 versus 14838, an 81.4 percent gap. PassMark extended instructions shows 54513 versus 8615, an 84.2 percent difference. PassMark single-thread and single-thread scores are identical within each processor, with the Core Ultra 7 265KF at 4928 and the Core 5 211TE at 1408, a 71.4 percent gap.

The overall benchmark average reinforces this hierarchy. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has an average benchmark score of 71910, while the Core 5 211TE averages 15370. The percentile ranking versus all CPUs in the database also separates them clearly: the Core Ultra 7 265KF sits at the 94th percentile, while the Core 5 211TE sits at the 69th percentile.

Looking at nearest rivals, the Core 5 211TE’s average score of 15370 places it close to several server and mobile parts. The AMD EPYC 7543 averages 15477, a 0.7 percent difference. The AMD EPYC 7702P averages 15130, a 1.6 percent difference. The AMD Ryzen 3 7440U averages 15682, a 2 percent difference. The Intel Core i3-1315U averages 15022, a 2.3 percent difference. These small deltas indicate the Core 5 211TE sits in a competitive band for its class.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF, with an average of 71910, is closest to the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX, which averages 71797, a 0.2 percent difference. The Intel Xeon 6517P averages 72350, a 0.6 percent difference. The Intel Xeon 6724P averages 72396, a 0.7 percent difference. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 averages 71370, a 0.8 percent difference. The Core Ultra 7 265KF’s performance level thus aligns with high-end server and workstation processors, not just desktop parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different silicon. The Core 5 211TE is built on a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. That process difference alone explains much of the performance gap, as the newer node allows higher clock speeds and better efficiency.

The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core 5 211TE uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 16 threads from 10 cores. The Core Ultra 7 265KF does not use multithreading, so its 20 threads come directly from 20 physical cores. This means the Core Ultra 7 265KF has double the physical core count, which directly benefits multi-threaded workloads.

Base and boost clocks diverge sharply. The Core 5 211TE runs at 1.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The Core Ultra 7 265KF runs at 3.90 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost. The higher base clock of the Core Ultra 7 265KF is particularly notable, as it sustains a much higher frequency under load.

Cache configurations also differ. The Core 5 211TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has more cache at every level, which supports its higher throughput.

The die size and transistor count tell a similar story. The Core 5 211TE has a die size of 215 mm², while the Core Ultra 7 265KF has a die size of 243 mm². The Core Ultra 7 265KF also lists 17,800 million transistors, while the Core 5 211TE has no recorded transistor count. The larger die and much higher transistor count reflect the more complex architecture of the Arrow Lake design.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF supports only DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The memory bandwidth figures favor the Core Ultra 7 265KF, which records 102.4 GB/s, against the Core 5 211TE’s 76.8 GB/s. The Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF does not.

PCIe connectivity also varies. The Core 5 211TE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 7 265KF provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The additional lanes on the Core Ultra 7 265KF allow more expansion devices to run at full bandwidth.

Integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 5 211TE includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. This means the Core 5 211TE can output video without a discrete GPU, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF requires a separate graphics card.

The sockets are not compatible. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851. Any platform choice must match the correct socket. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Core 5 211TE has a locked multiplier. The Core Ultra 7 265KF is also from the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 5 211TE has no series designation in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has twice the physical core count.

Q: What is the largest performance difference in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark floating point math, where the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 189431 against the Core 5 211TE’s 26150, a difference of 86.2 percent.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF supports only DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 211TE includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A in the database.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF has an average benchmark score of 71910, while the Core 5 211TE has an average of 15370. The Core Ultra 7 265KF sits at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE sits at the 69th percentile.

Q: Are the sockets compatible between these two processors?

A: No. The Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851. They require different motherboards.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms the Intel Core 5 211TE in every recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 64.8 percent in PassMark physics to 86.2 percent in PassMark floating point math. The Core Ultra 7 265KF’s average benchmark score of 71910 places it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE’s average of 15370 places it in the 69th percentile.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput. Its 20 physical cores, higher base clock of 3.90 GHz, boost clock of 5.50 GHz, and larger cache hierarchy support heavy multi-threaded tasks. Its nearest rivals in the database include server and workstation processors like the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX, Intel Xeon 6517P, and Intel Xeon 6724P, which confirms its placement in a high-performance tier.

The Core 5 211TE serves a different role. Its 10 cores and 16 threads, lower clock speeds, and smaller cache make it a more modest desktop part. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543, AMD EPYC 7702P, AMD Ryzen 3 7440U, and Intel Core i3-1315U, all of which fall within a 2.3 percent band of its average score. This indicates the Core 5 211TE competes in a mainstream or entry-level segment, not a high-end one.

One advantage of the Core 5 211TE is its integrated UHD Graphics 730. Systems built around it do not require a discrete GPU for basic display output. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, so a separate GPU is mandatory. For users building a system without a dedicated graphics card, only the Core 5 211TE fits that requirement.

The Core 5 211TE also supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF does not. That makes the Core 5 211TE relevant for systems where error-correcting memory is required, such as certain reliability-focused or small server applications. The Core Ultra 7 265KF cannot be used in such configurations.

The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 as well as DDR5, which may allow reuse of existing memory modules. The Core Ultra 7 265KF requires DDR5 exclusively. This could influence platform cost, though pricing is not part of this analysis.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF offers more PCIe Gen 5 lanes, 20 versus 16, which benefits systems with multiple high-bandwidth devices. It also has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Core 5 211TE is locked. The Core Ultra 7 265KF’s higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, against 76.8 GB/s, further supports data-intensive workloads.

In terms of raw performance, the Core Ultra 7 265KF is the clear winner. In terms of platform flexibility, the Core 5 211TE has advantages in integrated graphics, ECC support, and DDR4 compatibility. The choice depends on which priorities matter more. The recorded data does not show any workload where the Core 5 211TE leads.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors in the database:

• Cores: Core 5 211TE has 10, Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20.
• Threads: Core 5 211TE has 16, Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20.
• Base clock: Core 5 211TE is 1.70 GHz, Core Ultra 7 265KF is 3.90 GHz.
• Boost clock: Core 5 211TE is 4.80 GHz, Core Ultra 7 265KF is 5.50 GHz.
• TDP: Core 5 211TE is 45, Core Ultra 7 265KF is 125.
• Socket: Core 5 211TE uses Intel Socket 1700, Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851.
• Codename: Core 5 211TE is Bartlett Lake, Core Ultra 7 265KF is Arrow Lake-S.
• Architecture: Core 5 211TE has none listed, Core Ultra 7 265KF is Arrow Lake.
• Generation: Core 5 211TE is Core 5 (Bartlett Lake), Core Ultra 7 265KF is Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake).
• Process node: Core 5 211TE is 10 nm, Core Ultra 7 265KF is 3 nm.
• Foundry: Core 5 211TE is Intel, Core Ultra 7 265KF is TSMC.
• Transistors: Core 5 211TE has none listed, Core Ultra 7 265KF has 17,800 million.
• Die size: Core 5 211TE is 215 mm², Core Ultra 7 265KF is 243 mm².
• L1 cache: Core 5 211TE has 80 KB per core, Core Ultra 7 265KF has 192 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Core 5 211TE has 1.25 MB per core, Core Ultra 7 265KF has 3 MB per core.
• L3 cache: Core 5 211TE has 20 MB shared, Core Ultra 7 265KF has 30 MB shared.
• Memory support: Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, Core Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 only.
• Memory bandwidth: Core 5 211TE is 76.8 GB/s, Core Ultra 7 265KF is 102.4 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Core 5 211TE is true, Core Ultra 7 265KF is false.
• PCIe: Core 5 211TE is Gen 5 with 16 lanes, Core Ultra 7 265KF is Gen 5 with 20 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Core 5 211TE has UHD Graphics 730, Core Ultra 7 265KF has N/A.
• Release date: Core 5 211TE is 2025-01-12, Core Ultra 7 265KF is 2024-10-23.
• Launch MSRP: Core 5 211TE is $221, Core Ultra 7 265KF is $379.
• Multiplier unlocked: Core 5 211TE is false, Core Ultra 7 265KF is true.
• Part number: Core 5 211TE is SRQDL, Core Ultra 7 265KF is SRQCU.
• Series: Core 5 211TE has none listed, Core Ultra 7 265KF is Core Ultra Series 2.